Windows 8 and the disappearance of the Start button

Windows 8 is designed to be accessible for finger and mouse users alike. But …

Though Microsoft may yet have some trick up its sleeve, there's a growing body of evidence from leaked screenshots that Windows 8's taskbar will omit one mainstay of the Windows user interface: the Start button. To get to the Start menu's replacement (the "Start screen") from the desktop, you can press the Windows key on your keyboard, hit the hardware Windows key if your tablet has one, swipe your touch-screen from the side, or, if you have a mouse, move it to the bottom-left corner or right-hand edge. What you won't be able to do is actually click or tap a permanently-visible Start button on the taskbar.

The rumor may or may not turn out to be true, but if it is, we shouldn't be surprised. That's because you've entered the Metro zone, where the rules of human interaction have changed—and it's a change that will be felt not just by tablet users, but by traditional desktop denizens, too. Microsoft will need to tread carefully.

The Metro factor

From the outset, Microsoft designed Metro to be different from the Windows of old. Metro applications, downloaded and purchased through the Windows store, will eschew the Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers we're used to in favor of a new text-heavy, low-chrome, windowless Metro style.

The Metro aesthetic is essentially chromeless. The trappings of the traditional window—borders, title bars, permanently visible scrollbars, toolbars—are gone or at least substantially scaled back. Instead, we get much more emphasis on the use of, for example, juxtaposition and layout to convey information. Metro doesn't do away with chrome entirely (it still has buttons, etc.), but the chrome is much reduced compared to desktop Windows.

With the new aesthetic comes a new attitude towards user interaction. Traditionally, Windows has only used a small repertoire of learned interactions: click, double click, right click, drag-select, drag-and-drop. Almost everything else is visually cued on-screen. With Metro, a whole bunch of extra learned interactions are necessary, and the number of visual cues is greatly reduced.

Windows 8's gesture vocabulary is for the most part simple, with swipes and taps being the essential operations. The most important uses for these actions are swipe from the left and right edges of the screen (to task switch and bring up the "charms," respectively), and from the top or bottom (to bring up toolbars). Applications can be closed by dragging them off the bottom of the screen. Then there are some smaller gestures, like nudging items on the Start screen to select them for editing. But many of these interactions won't be prompted; they must be learned.

The swipe gestures to switch between applications, bring up the charms, or close tasks—none of these have any on-screen prompting. Nor do elements of the touch vernacular like "pinch zoom" (depending on form factor, at least; pinch zoom is peculiar on a phone that's mostly held and used one-handed, much more obvious on a tablet that's held and used two-handed).

It's possible that Windows 8 will have some kind of a tutorial, as Windows 3.1 once did, but this is unlikely. Such tutorials are not exactly fashionable, and the competition doesn't have to teach users how to use the platform (in spite of some non-obvious commands, such as "double tap home button" and "long hold").

Explicit versus implicit

It seems almost laughable today, but Windows 3.1 included a tutorial to explain how to use the mouse. Windows 95 didn't have the mouse tutorial. By 1995, mice were common enough to take mousing skills for granted, but it did have to teach users all the same. To encourage users to click the Start button, a bouncing message, "Click here to begin," would slide along the taskbar if the user didn't do anything after starting the operating system. Even the "Start" name itself was a bid to lure users into clicking; early prototypes had an unlabeled button.

Windows 95's "Click here to begin."

The bouncing prompt didn't survive past Windows 95, and even the Start label was finally dropped in Windows Vista; the Windows logo on the left-hand side of the taskbar was enough of a cue that people knew to click it. Windows 7 has all manner of hidden, unprompted user interface elements. Some are new, such as the jump lists that appear when you right click a taskbar button, and others old and long-standing, such as the alt-tab application switcher.

The trend to strip away explicit visual cues and rely more heavily on a common set of learned interactions is not a new one, but Metro is more extreme in this regard than any prior Windows version (though not substantially more extreme than other tablet platforms). It's an industry-wide trend.

The upside to this is slicker, lighter user interfaces. On some level, it's silly to waste screen space on user interface gadgets that prompt us to do things we know how to do anyway. For desktop machines with big screens, perhaps an X in the top right corner of every window is a small price to pay. But on a tablet (or a smartphone) where the constraints are much tighter (and where accidental presses are much more likely), a gestural method of closing applications saves precious pixels.

Learned versus intuitive

For actions that we do day in, day out, these prompts and on-screen cues are more than just a waste of space. They're straight up pointless. I don't need an on-screen cue to know where to resize a window, for example, because I know the border is where I resize the window. Windows 7's fat window borders, showing me where to grab hold of them to resize, are wasting space and telling me nothing I don't already know. A Mac OS X 10.7-style non-existent border would work just as well.

These basic interactions are all learned. It might seem "unintuitive" that Mac OS X 10.7 lets you grab a window border that "isn't there," but in practice it doesn't matter: we learn the interface and move on.

The learned interface no longer needs to be cluttered with affordances: visual cues that there's some interactive, functional item on the screen. There is no need for borders to "grab hold of," or of raised, pseudo-3D buttons to "depress."

There are many who'd argue that we learn every interface (except, perhaps, the very first one we use), and for all the emphasis put on "intuitive" interfaces, the use of learned interactions is downright expected. An operating system released in 2012 that tried to teach people how to double click or use a mouse would be laughed at.

There's nothing wrong with learned UI as such. A learned interface no longer has to explain every aspect of its operation to users, and can be a lot more streamlined and efficient as a result. But affordances do provide a great degree of discoverability. Users know which bits of the interface to experiment with because they are familiar with the on-screen prompts that the interface provides.

And not every interface can be learned. Tasks that are rare and infrequent are poor candidates for learning. Perhaps the most extreme demonstration of this is the command line compared to a wizard interface. Wizards are designed to be unlearned interfaces; they should be used for processes that are only performed infrequently, and so have to explain terminology and guide unfamiliar users through the process. The command line provides no guidance or explanation, and it's only worth learning the esoterica of individual commands if you're going to use them regularly. But ultimately, once the learning hurdle has been overcome, the command line can be far more productive and flexible than the wizard interface.

438 Reader Comments

Looks like Microsoft have a death wish. I'd rather eat sick than have a dual 30 inch desktop cluttered with cell phone sliding tiles. What makes them think ruining my desktop experience is going to make me buy a Win 8 tablet rather than an Apple one that works in the same childish way?

I already have more than 120 applications on my win 7 PC and it drives me mad that I cant group them by function like you used to be able to do in XP style start menus. And if I am looking for that seldom used flash card data recovery program there is no way I am going to remember what its frigging name was to type in the search bar.

At this rate I am going to have to learn how to code up my own user interface on the rubbish WYSIWYG operating systems of the future.

Basically Microsoft seem determined to turn our computing devices into nothing more than video delivery systems to suit the masses. Along the way they removed all possibility of using them for anything vaguely creative.

I will be skipping Win 8 assuming that the fools that release it will be jobless by the time the fixed Win 9 arrives.

Unresizable Aero windows have the same border (see Calculator, Windows Color and Appearance, et all), so this cannot be a visual cue for resizing. One would think the default size is to make resizing easier to do with a mouse, but that would just be an assumption since I've no documentation telling me. Since the border itself is not a visual cue for resizing, it also would be very easy to argue it's just an aesthetic.

I appreciate how the color change within the fat borders emphasizes which window has focus, if any. In earlier versions of Windows, I recall needing to tweak the color schemes to make that more obvious, and I had to use a somewhat garish contrast.

Personally I am looking forward to learning a new interface. I am satisfied with my Win7 interface but would still like it to evolve.

What I don't understand is all of the nasty push back. I have listened to peeps complain for literally decades about the 'clunky' approach to operational management the Windows OS's take. Now that they are going in the direction everyone spent years berating them for ignoring, the same people are raising a fuss about losing the legacy interface(s). I suspect these same people are intent on finding fault or foul in any direction Microsoft takes. Could you people please do the rest of us a favor and start all of your feed back with the disclaimer that you hate all Microsoft products?

Looks like Microsoft have a death wish. I'd rather eat sick than have a dual 30 inch desktop cluttered with cell phone sliding tiles.

Good thing they've demonstrated multiple times that multi-monitored displays would only display the start screen on one screen (just like the start menu). Also, I'd love to see you stick to that hyperbole- I will vomit into a bowl and you either eat it or I install Windows 8 on your screen.

Quote:

What makes them think ruining my desktop experience is going to make me buy a Win 8 tablet rather than an Apple one that works in the same childish way?

Because then you're using two different operating systems that can't sync over the cloud, instead of the same one on both devices, which can, I suppose. I mean, that'd be the reason I suspect they're going to push to potential customers.

Quote:

I already have more than 120 applications on my win 7 PC and it drives me mad that I cant group them by function like you used to be able to do in XP style start menus. And if I am looking for that seldom used flash card data recovery program there is no way I am going to remember what its frigging name was to type in the search bar.

While it does nothing to allay your concerns, you've got to admit that you're not exactly the common customer here. Then again, in Windows 7, you can still "group" items in the start bar by renaming the folders and moving things around. For example, I always create folders by categories on my parents' Windows 7 computers so they can find what they're looking for.

Quote:

At this rate I am going to have to learn how to code up my own user interface on the rubbish WYSIWYG operating systems of the future.

Well, let us know when you do.

Quote:

Basically Microsoft seem determined to turn our computing devices into nothing more than video delivery systems to suit the masses. Along the way they removed all possibility of using them for anything vaguely creative.

They're catering to the masses? The bastards!

Quote:

I will be skipping Win 8 assuming that the fools that release it will be jobless by the time the fixed Win 9 arrives.

Those "fools" being the people who decide whom to fire? I doubt Ballmer is going to be jobless.

Nothing wrong with catering to the masses, so long as you cater for the power users too. My guess is that the business edition of the software will have a win 7 desktop available. After all you wouldn't want to dumb down the American economy any further against the competition would you.

I'm fine with herds of zombie consumers being fed with whatever it takes to extract their wages, they probably only need half a dozen tiles for stuff like Facebook, Weather App, Streaming TV, iTunes and Pinterest.

But don't pretend that their marketing friendly dumb bling interface is going to help me create any content, run a business or do any engineering. Insisting that the user interface has to look like a cell phone basically as a market differentiation move, just like the screen wasting tosh that is the rubbish ribbon bar interface. It annoys me that the tech crowd appear to be completely taken in by this shiny.

Syncing over the cloud will be done by my applications not by a walled garden operating system, thank you very much. I'm not buying into an ecosystem where the operating system vendor controls what I install and how I use it. (The only Apple software or hardware I use is the Bonjour printer service that something else makes use of) The App Store concept is just a way of the OS vendor keeping competition out and will be regulated against eventually.

Thanks for the tip on Win 7 start menu, I will find out how to edit the list, that's going to be a great improvement. Hey, I still might be able to get it to work like an efficient drop down menu tree!

Nothing wrong with catering to the masses, so long as you cater for the power users too. My guess is that the business edition of the software will have a win 7 desktop available. After all you wouldn't want to dumb down the American economy any further against the competition would you.

I'm fine with herds of zombie consumers being fed with whatever it takes to extract their wages, they probably only need half a dozen tiles for stuff like Facebook, Weather App, Streaming TV, iTunes and Pinterest.

But don't pretend that their marketing friendly dumb bling interface is going to help me create any content, run a business or do any engineering. Insisting that the user interface has to look like a cell phone basically as a market differentiation move, just like the screen wasting tosh that is the rubbish ribbon bar interface. It annoys me that the tech crowd appear to be completely taken in by this shiny.

Syncing over the cloud will be done by my applications not by a walled garden operating system, thank you very much. I'm not buying into an ecosystem where the operating system vendor controls what I install and how I use it. (The only Apple software or hardware I use is the Bonjour printer service that something else makes use of) The App Store concept is just a way of the OS vendor keeping competition out and will be regulated against eventually.

Thanks for the tip on Win 7 start menu, I will find out how to edit the list, that's going to be a great improvement. Hey, I still might be able to get it to work like an efficient drop down menu tree!

I still don't see why they think selling a few tablets is worth pissing off their core userbase, this including the developers who still use a desktop/laptop and who will not benefit at all from touch interaction in creating content. Metro's touch-oriented interface with its huge touch-friendly texts and its gluttonous use of screen estate won't help me get things done any faster. In essence, buying Windows 8 (as it stands now) would result in me paying to be less efficient, more constrained and subjected to a user interface that is optimized for touch interaction, while there is no benefit from touch interaction in complex applications as IDEs and database management tools. Therefor I have no intention to start using a touch-enabled monitor in my line of work. I really don't get why Microsoft spits developers in the face like that. After all, it shouldn't be us begging them to cater to our needs. So far the only solution I was offered was to stay on Windows 7 and 'put up with it'. Great PR right there, that'll sell Win8 like hotcakes! Second class citizen and all that...

Good luck getting an app ecosystem started by making it harder for yourself by scaring developers away, not providing 1:1 alternatives, ruining their workflow, making their lifes harder for no good reason, or forcing them to write their software in another OS version entirely.

Nothing wrong with catering to the masses, so long as you cater for the power users too. My guess is that the business edition of the software will have a win 7 desktop available. After all you wouldn't want to dumb down the American economy any further against the competition would you.

Dumb...down...the economy. Only the American one. With...an...operating system...that is used all over the world. With the largest competitor...also being an American company. Right. That...makes...um...perfect sense?

Quote:

I'm fine with herds of zombie consumers being fed with whatever it takes to extract their wages, they probably only need half a dozen tiles for stuff like Facebook, Weather App, Streaming TV, iTunes and Pinterest.

Well of course you're okay with it. It probably took more than a few of those zombies to construct that pedestal you're on. I'm sorry in advance, but this is probably the most offensive comment in your post, and changed the tone of my response greatly.

Quote:

But don't pretend that their marketing friendly dumb bling interface is going to help me create any content, run a business or do any engineering. Insisting that the user interface has to look like a cell phone basically as a market differentiation move, just like the screen wasting tosh that is the rubbish ribbon bar interface. It annoys me that the tech crowd appear to be completely taken in by this shiny.

Yet the research continues to indicate that the ribbon actually decreases the number of things a user is able to do. Since, you know...Office is mainly for creating stuff, I'd assume that if more/better creation = good (which is what you've said), then the Ribbon is demonstrably better. Then again, that would be using logic.

You're full to the brim with generalities, but you have yet to demonstrate how, in any way, this will NEGATIVELY affect your ability to "create". What is it that you create? How does increasing the size of the Start Menu affect your productivity? If you're unable to adapt to small changes, are you really the person we want creating? These are just the questions that spring to mind for me.

Quote:

Syncing over the cloud will be done by my applications not by a walled garden operating system, thank you very much. I'm not buying into an ecosystem where the operating system vendor controls what I install and how I use it.

Then don't sign in using a Microsoft ID, and use x86 computers, where neither of those is an issue. It's amazing how many simple solutions exist for the problems you list.

Quote:

(The only Apple software or hardware I use is the Bonjour printer service that something else makes use of) The App Store concept is just a way of the OS vendor keeping competition out and will be regulated against eventually.

Agreed on that last point.

Quote:

Thanks for the tip on Win 7 start menu, I will find out how to edit the list, that's going to be a great improvement. Hey, I still might be able to get it to work like an efficient drop down menu tree!

I'd still say you should join us in the future, and just use typing if you know the name of the program you're looking for. As far as "how" to do it, it's in C:/ProgramData/Microsoft/Windows/Start Menu/Programs. You can add/delete/rename/merge folders quite easily, the same way you were able to in Vista.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There was no loss of functionality after XP, only a group of people who didn't know how to use the system. Microsoft tried something different, but they kept the base functionality the exact same. The self-proclaimed "creatives" and "power users" complain, saying "what about us? you took away a feature I liked". Except in this case you've been able to rearrange links in a tree menu the entire time after XP. You could do it in Vista. You could do it in 7. Nothing was LOST, but people have been complaining about it. That's the point- Microsoft is leaving in 95% of the "Start Menu" functionality...they're just making it look different.

This is why I ask for specific usage cases, because often there are simple solutions to the problems, if the problems really exist at all.

I still don't see why they think selling a few tablets is worth pissing off their core userbase, this including the developers who still use a desktop/laptop and who will not benefit at all from touch interaction in creating content. Metro's touch-oriented interface with its huge touch-friendly texts and its gluttonous use of screen estate won't help me get things done any faster.

In essence, buying Windows 8 (as it stands now) would result in me paying to be less efficient, more constrained and subjected to a user interface that is optimized for touch interaction, while there is no benefit from touch interaction in complex applications as IDEs and database management tools.

Two bad arguments mashed together doesn't make a good one. First, the OS being optimized for touch doesn't actually affect the applications themselves. So, install those same database management tools on Windows 8, and they'll look the same. They'll act the same. The fact that the rest of the system CAN accept touch input doesn't mean a requirement to. As far as the "less efficient"- again, this is incredibly disingenuous on a general level. How, SPECIFICALLY, are you going to be "less efficient"?

Quote:

Therefor I have no intention to start using a touch-enabled monitor in my line of work.

And Windows 8 will still work with a keyboard and mouse. Amazing!

Quote:

I really don't get why Microsoft spits developers in the face like that. After all, it shouldn't be us begging them to cater to our needs. So far the only solution I was offered was to stay on Windows 7 and 'put up with it'. Great PR right there, that'll sell Win8 like hotcakes! Second class citizen and all that...

Right, because everyone knows talking on a forum with strangers is the same thing as a Public Relations done by a company. Unless Microsoft ran an ad that said "Window 8: Buy it or shut up", your complaint does not involve any actual PR at all. It involves other people telling you their opinion. In which case you are literally complaining that people are telling you that they don't agree with you. You are also somehow building such a martyr complex that you refer to yourself as a "2nd Class citizen" because people on the interent don't agree with you.

I'm sure the people around the world whose legal and civil rights are being repressed by systematic discrimination align themselves with your plight of being told that if you don't like a new product, then you shouldn't buy it.

Quote:

Good luck getting an app ecosystem started by making it harder for yourself by scaring developers away, not providing 1:1 alternatives, ruining their workflow, making their lifes harder for no good reason, or forcing them to write their software in another OS version entirely.

Man, you know, I hate it when Microsoft comes over to your house with goons and threatens your family in order to force you to do stuff.

Man, you know, I hate it when Microsoft comes over to your house with goons and threatens your family in order to force you to do stuff.

This point keeps being made, and I keep rebutting it.

The conspicuous UI changes discussed here (and equivalent controversial changes to, say, Mac OS X Lion) are the tip of the iceberg, as far as operating system product cycles go. Thousands of improvements and changes "under the hood" constitute the vast bulk of OS development, version to version; the benefits of all of these changes (including improvements in processing, security, compatibility, etc.) are the main reasons for upgrading. This is the rationale that IT departments employ when deciding to migrate users en masse; UI changes are comparatively trivial, and ultimately we're all stuck with them.

Asking users to stay with obsolete versions of software simply because they prefer the older GUIs is not realistic or reasonable. It's like offering a car lessee a brand new, next-year's-model passenger car, complete with improved brakes, suspension, engine, mileage, safety, better stereo etc. but with a hot pink paint job. The lessee who complains bitterly about having to drive a pink car is condescendingly told to keep his/her old car -- "If you don't like it, don't use it...nobody's forcing you to change."

Man, you know, I hate it when Microsoft comes over to your house with goons and threatens your family in order to force you to do stuff.

This point keeps being made, and I keep rebutting it.

The conspicuous UI changes discussed here (and equivalent controversial changes to, say, Mac OS X Lion) are the tip of the iceberg, as far as operating system product cycles go. Thousands of improvements and changes "under the hood" constitute the vast bulk of OS development, version to version; the benefits of all of these changes (including improvements in processing, security, compatibility, etc.) are the main reasons for upgrading. This is the rationale that IT departments employ when deciding to migrate users en masse; UI changes are comparatively trivial, and ultimately we're all stuck with them.

Asking users to stay with obsolete versions of software simply because they prefer the older GUIs is not realistic or reasonable. It's like offering a car lessee a brand new, next-year's-model passenger car, complete with improved brakes, suspension, engine, mileage, safety, better stereo etc. but with a hot pink paint job. The lessee who complains bitterly about having to drive a pink car is condescendingly told to keep his/her old car -- "If you don't like it, don't use it...nobody's forcing you to change."

You keep saying it, but you fail to demonstrate why it's different than any of a billion choices anyone has to make. I like X. X is changed. I can use old X (OX) or I can use new X (NX). Whether I use OX or NX is my choice. My free choice. OX offers the benefits of being familiar, and of being something I like. NX offers improvements that can also benefit me, but I don't like aspects of NX.

Regardless of what values you plug in for X, you still arrive at the same conclusion: you have a choice. No one is forcing you. If you have to make sacrifices in what you enjoy because the benefits outweigh the costs, congratulations, you've...made a decision! It's a part of adult life, learning to adapt to situations that don't please you because there are aspects of them you don't enjoy.

Your pink paint job analogy is perfect, actually. Sacrifice some superficial stuff for a lot of under the hood improvements, or stick with the old thing because it's more comfortable for you. Please explain why it's so bad that you're being asked to make decisions. "It's not exactly what I want" isn't a rational starting point for a discussion.

EDIT: Oh, and if your job switches for you, then they've determined that it's in THEIR best interest to do so. Perhaps because they think people going "ugh, this start screen is distracting me" is less important than security, cross-platform application support, and the myriad of under-the-hood improvements you talked about. In which case, your personal preference is trumped by other things which are more important to the company as a whole. Once again, welcome to adulthood, where accepting things that you don't like are going to happen is an integral part of coping with day-to-day existence.

Your pink paint job analogy is perfect, actually. Sacrifice some superficial stuff for a lot of under the hood improvements, or stick with the old thing because it's more comfortable for you. Please explain why it's so bad that you're being asked to make decisions. "It's not exactly what I want" isn't a rational starting point for a discussion.

Fine, so extend the analogy and pretend that this is a discussion thread called "The new Camry's mandatory pink paint job." Many people would weigh in with their opinions, presenting the pros ("It resembles the car Clint Eastwood drove in that one movie"; "it has camp value") and the cons ("it looks ridiculous"). This would be a fruitful discussion, and the cumulative effect of everyone's opinions might actually get Toyota to change their minds and offer a silver-blue option. What would be wrong with that? Why squelch that discussion (or its equivalent) just because it's possible to delineate the clear-cut boundaries of the choice?

Fitts Law is quite broad to fit every aspect of my work under, as it mainly covers the interactive area and ease of use of targets reachable by a cursor (defined by their difficulty index and their location on the area). It doesn't state anything at all about Metro being equal in ease of use for my job. E.g. the Start Screen bothers me, the fact that Microsoft keeps on resisting to provide a dual experience is not covered by Fitts. There are interactions that are inherently harder or near impossible to do by touch than they are by mouse. The fact that I can at the maximum of my latest and greatest hardware only run two metro apps side by side is not covered by Fitts.

Quote:

Two bad arguments mashed together doesn't make a good one. First, the OS being optimized for touch doesn't actually affect the applications themselves. So, install those same database management tools on Windows 8, and they'll look the same. They'll act the same. The fact that the rest of the system CAN accept touch input doesn't mean a requirement to. As far as the "less efficient"- again, this is incredibly disingenuous on a general level. How, SPECIFICALLY, are you going to be "less efficient"?

It does affect the applications, what a horrible mess it'll be when Win32 will be considered legacy, ARM will be the target hardware and people don't know whether they'll need to build an application in WinRT or fear that they'll be regulated to the 'graveyard of silence', where they can join the Silverlight and WPF developers. This because Win8 seems to be postioning itself as a 'transition' OS, those who want their last desktop fix, can still get it, but it's been deprecated, perhaps not literally, but Microsoft has a tendency of just letting technologies die out, it'll do some maintenance, but improvements won't be made anymore. (Silverlight 6, anyone?)

Quote:

And Windows 8 will still work with a keyboard and mouse. Amazing!

"Still work" and "provide an equal experience" are quiet different statements, and you know that just as well as I do. No need to ridicule my statement if you can't even come to terms with the fact that Windows 8 won't be wonderful for everyone.

Quote:

Right, because everyone knows talking on a forum with strangers is the same thing as a Public Relations done by a company. Unless Microsoft ran an ad that said "Window 8: Buy it or shut up", your complaint does not involve any actual PR at all. It involves other people telling you their opinion. In which case you are literally complaining that people are telling you that they don't agree with you. You are also somehow building such a martyr complex that you refer to yourself as a "2nd Class citizen" because people on the interent don't agree with you.

I'm sure the people around the world whose legal and civil rights are being repressed by systematic discrimination align themselves with your plight of being told that if you don't like a new product, then you shouldn't buy it.

Let me take my dictionary if we're going to be "literal" now. I guess by stating that by PR I meant the 'overall message that emanates from a company in relation to a product' I'm moving the goalposts again? Because I don't really see what you're rebuttal is aimed at, if at all you weren't attacking a strawman. I have every right to state my dissatisfaction with a product on a website that is centered around tech news, I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees, in the end both my and your arguments are futile in respect to whatever Microsoft will do. So get of the high horse already, the statement about civil rights doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

Quote:

Man, you know, I hate it when Microsoft comes over to your house with goons and threatens your family in order to force you to do stuff.

Yeah, how dare I demand equal treatment, how dare I ask if my experience will not be tampered with. Microsoft forces nothing on me, and it is true that there are enough alternatives available. This attitude you show seems to be exemplary of the new Microsoft: either you follow along with what they say is 'good for you' (workflow,efficiency and productivity be damned) or you're an outcast, an idiot who isn't worthy of using the new thing. That's Apple's turf and they're a zillion times better at it than Microsoft. Your point of "Microsoft forcing me to use anything" is the wrong one, it was the comfort and pleasantness that their products provided that made me pick their products over those of the competition. It is the sudden lack of respect for their former userbase that enrages me. It's like they saw a younger, healthier user segment and ditched their current spouse for it because it wasn't attractive enough anymore. Any similarities with Newt Gingrich are purely coincidental.

Fitts Law is quite broad to fit every aspect of my work under, as it mainly covers the interactive area and ease of use of targets reachable by a cursor (defined by their difficulty index and their location on the area). It doesn't state anything at all about Metro being equal in ease of use for my job. E.g. the Start Screen bothers me, the fact that Microsoft keeps on resisting to provide a dual experience is not covered by Fitts. There are interactions that are inherently harder or near impossible to do by touch than they are by mouse. The fact that I can at the maximum of my latest and greatest hardware only run two metro apps side by side is not covered by Fitts.

I can track down the Microsoft post demonstrating exactly why Fitts law makes hitting things on the Start Screen is faster than trying to hit them on the Start Menu, but at this point, you're intentionally obfuscating the fact that you can still interact with a mouse. If you're on a non-touchscreen computer, FITTS LAW IS STILL SATISFIED, because the larger size of the buttons means a quicker-to-acquire target.

Again, metro!= Windows 8. You can run as many desktop apps side by side as you want to. You're trying to say that because SOME Windows 8 apps will use WinRT, that the ENTIRE OS IS BAD. It's a logistical fallacy. Your arguments don't even make sense. So, install Windows 8 on your computer. Put all of your programs on there. How, in any way, is your experience WITH THE PROGRAMS YOU HAVE any different. It isn't.

Seriously, your logic is so flawed that it's nearly pointless to talk to you.

Quote:

It does affect the applications, what a horrible mess it'll be when Win32 will be considered legacy, ARM will be the target hardware and people don't know whether they'll need to build an application in WinRT or fear that they'll be regulated to the 'graveyard of silence', where they can join the Silverlight and WPF developers. This because Win8 seems to be postioning itself as a 'transition' OS, those who want their last desktop fix, can still get it, but it's been deprecated, perhaps not literally, but Microsoft has a tendency of just letting technologies die out, it'll do some maintenance, but improvements won't be made anymore. (Silverlight 6, anyone?)

Oh, you have evidence that every program will be converted to WinRT then? I assume you do, or suggesting that would be incredibly foolhardy. Suggesting that because they're adding ARM support (through WinRT) means that somehow you're going to LOSE SUPPORT for more complex programs like a database management program is ridiculous. It's like saying that because someone decides to buy strawberries, they can no longer buy bananas. They aren't mutually exclusive. Suggesting they are is straight-up nonsense.

Suggesting that Microsoft has a history of letting coding standards die off is so ludicrous that you've officially lost any creditability by saying it. Seriously. In Windows 7, right this moment, you can run code in compatibility mode all the way back to Windows 95. Programs that were written for a 17-year-old OS are still supported by Microsoft. Using Silverlight as a strawman is especially funny, since the underlying code for Silverlight is a subset of .NET, which will (dramatic pause) still be supported in Windows 8.

Quote:

"Still work" and "provide an equal experience" are quiet different statements, and you know that just as well as I do. No need to ridicule my statement if you can't even come to terms with the fact that Windows 8 won't be wonderful for everyone.

And based on the number of untrue statements you've made, I doubt you've used it enough to determine whether it's an equal experience. It seems to me that at this point, you're comparing apples to a fruit you've only seen pictures of and telling me how much you prefer the flavor of one.

Quote:

Let me take my dictionary if we're going to be "literal" now. I guess by stating that by PR I meant the 'overall message that emanates from a company in relation to a product' I'm moving the goalposts again? Because I don't really see what you're rebuttal is aimed at, if at all you weren't attacking a strawman. I have every right to state my dissatisfaction with a product on a website that is centered around tech news, I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees, in the end both my and your arguments are futile in respect to whatever Microsoft will do. So get of the high horse already, the statement about civil rights doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

Well, I apologize for the fact that words have meaning, and that I respond to what they actually mean, not what you're thinking about. The point is, you're stating dissatisfaction with the product. Cool, got it. What you said, however was "so far the only solution I was offered was to stay on Windows 7 and 'put up with it"...great PR right there." I'm sorry, but where has Microsoft said that? Where have they implied it? I said that. Me. Not Microsoft. Again I emphasis specifics, emphasize clarity in meaning. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT when you are suggesting that "overall message that emanates from a company in relation to a product that I'm using" is "offering [you] to stay on Windows 7 or 'put up with it;"? Is Coka Cola offering a new flavor alongside the other one suggesting "take the new flavor or "put up with" the old one? How dare they offer me a choice I don't like and am not forced to take!. You're the one who claimed you're a second-class citizen. Go ahead and consider what that phrase actually means, and maybe you'll see how silly your hyperbole really is.

Quote:

Man, you know, I hate it when Microsoft comes over to your house with goons and threatens your family in order to force you to do stuff.

Quote:

Yeah, how dare I demand equal treatment, how dare I ask if my experience will not be tampered with. Microsoft forces nothing on me, and it is true that there are enough alternatives available. This attitude you show seems to be exemplary of the new Microsoft: either you follow along with what they say is 'good for you' (workflow,efficiency and productivity be damned) or you're an outcast, an idiot who isn't worthy of using the new thing. That's Apple's turf and they're a zillion times better at it than Microsoft. Your point of "Microsoft forcing me to use anything" is the wrong one, it was the comfort and pleasantness that their products provided that made me pick their products over those of the competition. It is the sudden lack of respect for their former userbase that enrages me. It's like they saw a younger, healthier user segment and ditched their current spouse for it because it wasn't attractive enough anymore. Any similarities with Newt Gingrich are purely coincidental.

Amazingly, you ARE given equal treatment. As in, you have the same choice as someone else. Either you use the products that are sold, or you don't. Amazingly, you can't go up to a company and say "I want you to sell this to me" and force them to do it. Because, you know, that's not the way the world works. Microsoft has promised support for Windos 7 until 2020. Congrats, you have almost an entire decade to stick with what you have, if that's what you want.

You're implying that Microsoft owes it to you to offer you the exact product you want. Guess what? They don't. They sell stuff. You buy it. Or you don't. Either way, you have the exact same "treatment" as every other customer. You don't like the things they choose, then you don't buy the product. For example, I objected to the rules put in place by Apple that would force all in-app purchases to go through their system. So, I didn't buy the product. That's how it works. I didn't whine "they're forcing to choose between my desire to own an iPad my values". No, I made a freaking decision. Just like you do every time you open your wallet.

Your "experience" isn't being tampered with. You know that computer you have? Use it the way it is. Un-tampered experience.

So you're given equal treatment and you can have an un-tampered-with experience. What you're REALLY complaining about is that you can't have everything you want. That's fine, but cut the martyr routine.

Fine, so extend the analogy and pretend that this is a discussion thread called "The new Camry's mandatory pink paint job." Many people would weigh in with their opinions, presenting the pros ("It resembles the car Clint Eastwood drove in that one movie"; "it has camp value") and the cons ("it looks ridiculous"). This would be a fruitful discussion, and the cumulative effect of everyone's opinions might actually get Toyota to change their minds and offer a silver-blue option. What would be wrong with that? Why squelch that discussion (or its equivalent) just because it's possible to delineate the clear-cut boundaries of the choice?

Except that we're not seeing constructive discussion. "Toyota is a crap company who is forcing you to buy a pink car, and this makes you the same as the Copts in Egypt " is the intellectual level of many of the comments. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth that is, ultimately, pointless. Why squelch a discussion full of demonstrably incorrect facts, completely terrible logic, and hyperbole that compares not liking the changes of a product to being systematically oppressed? Because I have higher expectations of the community here than I do at engadget. If people want an echo chamber of stupidity, there's plenty of places to have it. I prefer intelligent discussion based on facts.

Fine, so extend the analogy and pretend that this is a discussion thread called "The new Camry's mandatory pink paint job." Many people would weigh in with their opinions, presenting the pros ("It resembles the car Clint Eastwood drove in that one movie"; "it has camp value") and the cons ("it looks ridiculous"). This would be a fruitful discussion, and the cumulative effect of everyone's opinions might actually get Toyota to change their minds and offer a silver-blue option. What would be wrong with that? Why squelch that discussion (or its equivalent) just because it's possible to delineate the clear-cut boundaries of the choice?

Except that we're not seeing constructive discussion. "Toyota is a crap company who is forcing you to buy a pink car, and this makes you the same as the Copts in Egypt " is the intellectual level of many of the comments. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth that is, ultimately, pointless. Why squelch a discussion full of demonstrably incorrect facts, completely terrible logic, and hyperbole that compares not liking the changes of a product to being systematically oppressed? Because I have higher expectations of the community here than I do at engadget. If people want an echo chamber of stupidity, there's plenty of places to have it. I prefer intelligent discussion based on facts.

Fine, but I notice the subject has changed. If you want a higher caliber of discussion, that's understandable. But your consistent complaint has been something else: that people who complain about the new GUI elements are wrong to complain; that they're guilty of some basic misunderstanding about what they are or are not "forced" to do.

At least give me that much: you've moved the goal posts. You haven't been saying "don't complain in such a shrill fashion" or "don't exaggerate your points"; you've been saying "these complaints are fundamentally ill-founded because they ignore the freedom of choice that still exists."

Fine, but I notice the subject has changed. If you want a higher caliber of discussion, that's understandable. But your consistent complaint has been something else: that people who complain about the new GUI elements are wrong to complain; that they're guilty of some basic misunderstanding about what they are or are not "forced" to do.

At least give me that much: you've moved the goal posts. You haven't been saying "don't complain in such a shrill fashion" or "don't exaggerate your points"; you've been saying "these complaints are fundamentally ill-founded because they ignore the freedom of choice that still exists."

Perhaps we need a different analogy then, because I'm afraid I'm a bit lost. I still 100% believe that you can't say "Microsoft is forcing me to upgrade." That argument IS ill-formed, in my opinion. You mentioned discussing the benefits and pitfalls of the particular choice of color on the car. I assumed that the pink color was the analogy for "the features of Windows 8". In which case I'd agree that those things should be discussed, by all means with intelligent conversation.

Saying "I don't like this for because I don't like the way it looks doesn't appeal to me, and it's not worth the cost to upgrade?" Those are facts, and the aesthetics can be debated. Saying "I don't like the loss of the recent programs area of the start menu?" That's also something you can discuss. It is better to have that area, or is it more space-conservative to only pin applications people actually choose? That's something you can discuss. It's a discussion point.

Saying "Microsoft is forcing me to upgrade" is NOT a good discussion point. It's a pointless, inaccurate gripe based on emotionality. No, you're not being forced. You're being given two options and being asked to choose between them. No matter how many times you say "well, they're making you upgrade because there are positive features", that won't make it an issue of forced. At absolute best, you can say they're making it more desirable to buy it than to avoid it. You can stay on 7 until 2020, and still enjoy products support. If that's what you want, do it. If it's not, we can discuss why you don't like Windows 8. But we can not discuss whether or not Microsoft is actually forcing you to. There's no gun to your head. There's are reasons you should, and reasons you shouldn't, and you have to make the choice. Just like if you have to choose between a new pink car or an old blue one. No one is forcing your hand, they're simply offering you two choices that have drawbacks.

Saying "Microsoft is forcing me to upgrade" is NOT a good discussion point. It's a pointless, inaccurate gripe based on emotionality. No, you're not being forced. You're being given two options and being asked to choose between them. No matter how many times you say "well, they're making you upgrade because there are positive features", that won't make it an issue of forced. At absolute best, you can say they're making it more desirable to buy it than to avoid it. You can stay on 7 until 2020, and still enjoy products support. If that's what you want, do it. If it's not, we can discuss why you don't like Windows 8. But we can not discuss whether or not Microsoft is actually forcing you to. There's no gun to your head. There's are reasons you should, and reasons you shouldn't, and you have to make the choice. Just like if you have to choose between a new pink car or an old blue one. No one is forcing your hand, they're simply offering you two choices that have drawbacks.

You're getting unnecessarily hung up on the semantics.

Right now, I am preparing to upgrade my Mac workstation from Snow Leopard to Lion. I honestly would rather not, because the most conspicuous part of the OS -- the part that I encounter with my eyes and fingers every day -- is going to change in ways that I don't particularly like. The scrollbars will change; a widget I depend on (the top-right "minimize toolbar" button on nearly every window) will be gone; the "Dashboard" feature will not work the way I'm used to; etc. etc. (These changes are very minor and gentle compared to Windows 7 to Windows 8 migration, by the way.)

However, I need to move to Lion, because I need the better multithreading; I need to sync my mail with my new laptop (and iCloud, the best way to do this, requires Lion); I need the speed gains and productivity gains that will come with the new Terminal; and I want (but don't need) to start using "documents in the Cloud," which can't be done without Lion.

I would describe this dilemma as "being forced to upgrade to Lion." You can substitute much better examples from other instances of the same thing (for example, I remember being "forced" to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98 -- against my better judgment -- because Windows 98 supported USB natively.) You can get didactic about parsing the word "forced," but you're just being stubborn: surely you can see the underlying point. My car color analogy, though silly, still fits: we give up superficial things in order to gain more substantive things, and, when this seems arbitrarily enforced, we complain. It can't be that difficult for you to see the logic and the rationale behind this.

Saying "Microsoft is forcing me to upgrade" is NOT a good discussion point. It's a pointless, inaccurate gripe based on emotionality. No, you're not being forced. You're being given two options and being asked to choose between them. No matter how many times you say "well, they're making you upgrade because there are positive features", that won't make it an issue of forced. At absolute best, you can say they're making it more desirable to buy it than to avoid it. You can stay on 7 until 2020, and still enjoy products support. If that's what you want, do it. If it's not, we can discuss why you don't like Windows 8. But we can not discuss whether or not Microsoft is actually forcing you to. There's no gun to your head. There's are reasons you should, and reasons you shouldn't, and you have to make the choice. Just like if you have to choose between a new pink car or an old blue one. No one is forcing your hand, they're simply offering you two choices that have drawbacks.

You're getting unnecessarily hung up on the semantics.

Right now, I am preparing to upgrade my Mac workstation from Snow Leopard to Lion. I honestly would rather not, because the most conspicuous part of the OS -- the part that I encounter with my eyes and fingers every day -- is going to change in ways that I don't particularly like. The scrollbars will change; a widget I depend on (the top-right "minimize toolbar" button on nearly every window) will be gone; the "Dashboard" feature will not work the way I'm used to; etc. etc. (These changes are very minor and gentle compared to Windows 7 to Windows 8 migration, by the way.)

However, I need to move to Lion, because I need the better multithreading; I need to sync my mail with my new laptop (and iCloud, the best way to do this, requires Lion); I need the speed gains and productivity gains that will come with the new Terminal; and I want (but don't need) to start using "documents in the Cloud," which can't be done without Lion.

I would describe this dilemma as "being forced to upgrade to Lion." You can substitute much better examples from other instances of the same thing (for example, I remember being "forced" to upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98 -- against my better judgment -- because Windows 98 supported USB natively.) You can get didactic about parsing the word "forced," but you're just being stubborn: surely you can see the underlying point. My car color analogy, though silly, still fits: we give up superficial things in order to gain more substantive things, and, when this seems arbitrarily enforced, we complain. It can't be that difficult for you to see the logic and the rationale behind this.

I can see your point, I just disagree. Being "forced" implies avoiding a negative thing. If you freely choose because the pros outweigh they cons, I don't consider it being forced. I consider it making a decision. It's seriously difficult for me to see how you deciding that the several advances you want are more important than the negatives you don't constitutes "force". I don't say that charmin "forces" me to pay more for toilet paper just because it's better than the generic single-ply crap. I choose which one I want. Sometimes it costs more, which is a negative consequence. But I am still the decision maker. Should that $2 difference become worth it to me, I will switch to cheaper TP. Until then, I state that as a competent adult, I'm capable to deciding which of two choices is better for me.

The ribbon might be great, but in a world of widescreens it seems incredible to spend so much energy designing an interface that can't be vertical.Likewise, the start screen might be awesome, but in a world of increasing desktop resolutions it seems incredible to spead mouse targets across all 2+ megapixels.

But hey - Microsoft isn't the only company with ui designers who like moving their mouse as much as possible!

The Windows 8 developer blog explains the rational behind many of the design decisions they have been making. The start menu as is exists today is terrible. It's constrained in a tiny portion of the screen, which has - relatively - become ever smaller as monitor resolutions have increased. You have to scroll through multiple screens to find what you're looking for, which is why people have turned to using the built-in search functionality and pinning programs to the superbar (Microsoft's usage metric show this to be the case). Windows 8 takes advantage of your entire display and provides dynamic tiles to get access to the information faster than ever before. People complain about it taking up the entire screen, yet the entire point of using the start menu is to launch a program - if it's harder to find that program because you're only using a fraction of the screen then that defeats the purpose of it.

Hmm. now I get it. So really what Metro is like is the old desktops I used to see - ones with a thousand icons on them (every install app puts an icon on the desktop grid). So Metro is pretty much exactly like arranging all my icons on the desktop and pressing the 'minimise all' button to clear everyone away so I can select one of them.

Fair enough, a lot of non-power users used to have a setup exactly like that. Only now it doesn't seem quite so cool does it? Welcome back, ActiveDesktop.

I guess the docked apps thing might be useful, but not as good as being able to run multiple overlapping windows in the places you want them (eg I have a TV guide running along the top of my monitor, it works well placed there, but it's implemented as just another window, having a small chunk of the left-hand side taken up with a mini view would not be nearly as good, not to mention the wasted space on the left side if that was the only 'gadget' I was running).

I'm not convinced, I like the idea of the touch screen view for the desktop, but that would have to be used on an occasional basis (and by my left hand usually, or I'd be handing off the mouse and back again all the time, left hand is more natural to interact with the monitor I feel).

I also like all the little bits and pieces I have scattered about, from the notification area with a fair few running apps in it, to the gadgets on my desktop and the start-menu list of all running apps. We'll have to see what the Win8 interface turns out like.

Catering to the masses is always a horrible idea as far as innovation goes. It slows or even STOPS innovation. It unifies instead of diversifies.

Having these features for people is nice. But I can tell you as a programmer and a Windows user since its MS-DOS Overlay days. It is EASY to allow users to check a box and turn ribbons off. Or check a box and enable/disable the start menu.

It's simply asinine to say "It's not there, tough. Deal with it." They're obviously trying to win over Apple fans and pull them over to Windows. But it doesn't matter if Windows "pleasures" you, these people are not going to switch. They're catering towards a market that they don't have, and will never have.

If that means I have to move to *gags* Mac, I will. I don't need a quarter of my window being taken up by monsterous icons for something I have a shortcut on my keyboard for.

DOWN WITH RIBBONS.

You do realize you actually have MORE keyboard shortcuts in Windows 8, right? And the Start Screen, just like the Start Menu, goes away when you're done using it? and that you can use existing shortcuts while it's up? and that using the shortcuts is just as fast in 8 as it is in 7 and...

Catering to the masses is always a horrible idea as far as innovation goes. It slows or even STOPS innovation. It unifies instead of diversifies.

Right, it's only when people aim at the small, unprofitable sector that things become innovative, right? Except that the iPhone because successful because it WASN'T geared towards the traditional smartphone crowd- it was simple enough to use by anyone. And the Kinnect became successful because it targeted the non-gamers as well as the gamers. And the Wii sold millions of units because it, too, didn't aim for the "hardcore" market.

The idea that innovation only comes because of the "power users" and trickles down from there is...well, it's bad. Do you think instagram went after photography power-users? No, they went after the people who want to take fun pictures on the go. Did the success of Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, and dozens of other games sell like hotcakes because they were geared towards the "core", or because there was universal appeal.

The list goes on and on. Innovation and excellence often do come as a method to gain the widest support.

Quote:

Having these features for people is nice. But I can tell you as a programmer and a Windows user since its MS-DOS Overlay days. It is EASY to allow users to check a box and turn ribbons off. Or check a box and enable/disable the start menu.

Well, at least it's easy to see why you don't think it's good to target the masses. You're the niche. and if you want those things, they'll be there...in the form of 3rd party registry tweaks.

Quote:

It's simply asinine to say "It's not there, tough. Deal with it." They're obviously trying to win over Apple fans and pull them over to Windows. But it doesn't matter if Windows "pleasures" you, these people are not going to switch. They're catering towards a market that they don't have, and will never have.

Well it's not there. and eventually, you WILL have to deal with it. Stamping your feet about the playground doesn't mean you get to stay longer. The market is shifting, and Microsoft is reacting. You say it won't work. Honestly, I agree. But doing nothing means a slow death as the "niche" they target gets smaller and smaller.

I honestly doubt the quality of the Windows 8 ux/ui has much impact on its success. The vast majority of sales - and the sales that will decide if Windows 8 lives or dies, will be OEM sales. And they probably care more about bussiness agreements with MS and marketing budgets than usability.

I am still pretty sceptical about it, but at least it should push Windows 7 prices down a bit.

I love how forcing the simplest unified workflow is annoying as hell when Apple does it but brilliant when Microsoft does it.

When Apple "caters to the masses" all the tech-heads get so furious. "I want to customize! Give me back control of my own machine!" etc. But now the shoe's on the other foot, and suddenly it's a great idea.

I love how forcing the simplest unified workflow is annoying as hell when Apple does it but brilliant when Microsoft does it.

When Apple "caters to the masses" all the tech-heads get so furious. "I want to customize! Give me back control of my own machine!" etc. But now the shoe's on the other foot, and suddenly it's a great idea.

Imagine the things you associate with the image and habits of the late Steve Jobs, now read this article. To me, it seem that Sinofski is Microsoft's homegrown Steve Jobs, turtleneck and all.

It's too bad really, the new mindset doesn't bode well for those who were used to choice and customization or getting work done in general. I guess Microsoft looked at its own market share and saw it was not doing good. They saw they were missing out in certain core markets, especially mobile and tablets. Furthermore, Windows 7 is hard to improve upon, it caters to most (if not all) desktop needs. To compensate, it seems they have accepted that they themselves couldn't innovate a way out of that situation and decided that it was best to use a proven strategy. Now instead of catering to their 'usual' audience, they've shifted their focus to the consumer, and not the tech-oriented one, just the regular John Doe. To preempt any outrage of their current users, Windows 7's end of support was enlongated to 2020. This was a token that Microsoft won't euthanize them, for now. In that sense I guess Windows 8 will mainly consist alongside Windows 7. That's why I don't get the big setback for desktop users in the consumer preview. For years to come desktops/laptops will still be the tool on which content is created, no matter how precise touch gets or how accurate a Kinect may trace. I can see a future in which there is a lof of touch, coexisting on equal ground with the mouse and keyboard. No way that the future is all touch: technology may change a lot in the coming years, but the human body is here to stay in its current iteration for quite some time.

To be honest, I don't see that many people upgrading their Windows 7 systems (unless they have a touch-sensitive monitor, which isn't likely). So that leaves shipping with new devices, which is quite a leap to take. Especially since there aren't that much devices announced yet that will carry the OS. Businesses will not want it (at least not the Consumer Preview) because of Metro/retraining their staff, helpdesks will hate it and I could even see a lot of consumers who didn't explicitly ask for Windows 8 return it or at least think they've gotten something else than "Windows" on their computer as it'll turn their comfortable world upside down. For them a Start Menu is the way to do something on a computer and I think that many will resist the idea of 'having' to learn a new way of interacting. If that happens to be true, not only will Windows 8 be doomed, but due to it's fierce connection to the tablets and phones of the same name, a failure on this front would probably pull the other two down into the abyss with it.

That uncertainty might make developing for said platform an even bigger leap, as even those devices that are bought, will have to prove themselves in the market versus those of Apple and Google, two companies that have quite a head start in those markets. I haven't heard a single success story of indy developers for WP7.x, and even WPF seems over its peak already. Wooing developers (who haven't yet burned their fingers on Silverlight and WPF) is something they will need to invest heavily in. The fact that they managed to give VS11 a completely redundant theme overhaul that captures the essence behind the ideas of 'Depression' and 'Suicide' very well, does not bode well for the Apple-too company in the making. Get the style consistent over the whole of the platform, or prepare for your demise. Furthermore, seeing how (pre-beta) there's not even a way for a developer to keep his current workflow ('work in the Desktop App, or get lost') or a way to get rid of the Start Screen completely and revert to the Start Menu, I'm not really sure whether Microsoft knows what it's doing here. Those alterations might well scare away the developers.

I think they're making a giant bet here: there's trying to be Apple, and there's matching Apple. Unless you can match them 1:1 you might just ending up looking like a cheap knock-off instead. Then again, there's their current user base who picked Microsoft over Apple because they liked Microsoft better. Seeing the former become a clone of the latter, might drive those once loyal to Microsoft in the hands of a third party, being Apple and/or Google, and perhaps even some Linux. I guess Microsoft is betting on it that those who are on Windows 7 will have 'nowhere to go' and will begrudgingly install Windows 8 after a while. As they themselves have alleviated HTML5/JavaScript as a core developer language, they might not realize that those languages work equally well on anything that can run a browser.

I love how forcing the simplest unified workflow is annoying as hell when Apple does it but brilliant when Microsoft does it.

When Apple "caters to the masses" all the tech-heads get so furious. "I want to customize! Give me back control of my own machine!" etc. But now the shoe's on the other foot, and suddenly it's a great idea.

Imagine the things you associate with the image and habits of the late Steve Jobs, now read this article. To me, it seem that Sinofski is Microsoft's homegrown Steve Jobs, turtleneck and all.

It's too bad really, the new mindset doesn't bode well for those who were used to choice and customization or getting work done in general. I guess Microsoft looked at its own market share and saw it was not doing good. They saw they were missing out in certain core markets, especially mobile and tablets. Furthermore, Windows 7 is hard to improve upon, it caters to most (if not all) desktop needs. To compensate, it seems they have accepted that they themselves couldn't innovate a way out of that situation and decided that it was best to use a proven strategy. Now instead of catering to their 'usual' audience, they've shifted their focus to the consumer, and not the tech-oriented one, just the regular John Doe. To preempt any outrage of their current users, Windows 7's end of support was enlongated to 2020. This was a token that Microsoft won't euthanize them, for now. In that sense I guess Windows 8 will mainly consist alongside Windows 7. That's why I don't get the big setback for desktop users in the consumer preview. For years to come desktops/laptops will still be the tool on which content is created, no matter how precise touch gets or how accurate a Kinect may trace. I can see a future in which there is a lof of touch, coexisting on equal ground with the mouse and keyboard. No way that the future is all touch: technology may change a lot in the coming years, but the human body is here to stay in its current iteration for quite some time.

To be honest, I don't see that many people upgrading their Windows 7 systems (unless they have a touch-sensitive monitor, which isn't likely). So that leaves shipping with new devices, which is quite a leap to take. Especially since there aren't that much devices announced yet that will carry the OS. Businesses will not want it (at least not the Consumer Preview) because of Metro/retraining their staff, helpdesks will hate it and I could even see a lot of consumers who didn't explicitly ask for Windows 8 return it or at least think they've gotten something else than "Windows" on their computer as it'll turn their comfortable world upside down. For them a Start Menu is the way to do something on a computer and I think that many will resist the idea of 'having' to learn a new way of interacting. If that happens to be true, not only will Windows 8 be doomed, but due to it's fierce connection to the tablets and phones of the same name, a failure on this front would probably pull the other two down into the abyss with it.

That uncertainty might make developing for said platform an even bigger leap, as even those devices that are bought, will have to prove themselves in the market versus those of Apple and Google, two companies that have quite a head start in those markets. I haven't heard a single success story of indy developers for WP7.x, and even WPF seems over its peak already. Wooing developers (who haven't yet burned their fingers on Silverlight and WPF) is something they will need to invest heavily in. The fact that they managed to give VS11 a completely redundant theme overhaul that captures the essence behind the ideas of 'Depression' and 'Suicide' very well, does not bode well for the Apple-too company in the making. Get the style consistent over the whole of the platform, or prepare for your demise. Furthermore, seeing how (pre-beta) there's not even a way for a developer to keep his current workflow ('work in the Desktop App, or get lost') or a way to get rid of the Start Screen completely and revert to the Start Menu, I'm not really sure whether Microsoft knows what it's doing here. Those alterations might well scare away the developers.

I think they're making a giant bet here: there's trying to be Apple, and there's matching Apple. Unless you can match them 1:1 you might just ending up looking like a cheap knock-off instead. Then again, there's their current user base who picked Microsoft over Apple because they liked Microsoft better. Seeing the former become a clone of the latter, might drive those once loyal to Microsoft in the hands of a third party, being Apple and/or Google, and perhaps even some Linux. I guess Microsoft is betting on it that those who are on Windows 7 will have 'nowhere to go' and will begrudgingly install Windows 8 after a while. As they themselves have alleviated HTML5/JavaScript as a core developer language, they might not realize that those languages work equally well on anything that can run a browser.

Good points all. I would emphasize what I feel is the most important difference (which Microsoft is overlooking): the popularity of Apple's GUI concepts.

When Apple brings iOS ideas into their desktop OS, they're porting ideas that are proven in the marketplace. Whereas bringing Windows Phone 7 ideas to the desktop is like doubling down on a bet that hasn't paid off.

I already have a taste on Windows 8 Consumer Preview and find myself quite enjoy it. As a long user of Windows, I found myself switch to Metro style quite easily. Somehow I wonder why are you guys object with any of these?

You may hate the ribbon, but tell that to the Office team, where 90% of the requested features already existed, people just can't find them.

"Data is showing that the redesign of Office really did reach this goal — Word 2007 and Excel 2007 users are now using four times as many features as they used in previous versions, and for PowerPoint, the increase in feature use is a factor of five."Obviously the have statistics and data to prove that the ribbon works

I much prefer the ribbon. Power users (like you, and me) need to remember that most people are not us. Most people need help. File menus are not helpful.

The problem isn't the ribbon, per se, it's that it's a badly-implemented ribbon. If it had a strictly-functional organization--IOW, ditch the first tab of the ribbon, which is a semi-random collection of "common commands", and I think it would be a good interface--not a good interface for me, but at least usable at that point. Of course, I'm pretty sure the reason that they did that is because the one big downside of the ribbon, relative to menus, is that it doesn't make the multiple tabs obvious (to the novice user), so they'd be back to people not even looking in the 2nd and 3rd and ... tabs, just as they didn't look in menus. Still, it really feels like they had to patch a big kludge, in the form of the first tab of the ribbon, onto the ribbon interface in order for it to actually be better than menus+toolbars, and then stick some other kludges into it (like dropdowns and other complicated interface elements, where a simple button didn't make sense) to implement all the functionality. And, on top of that, at least the things that I want to do are half the time still buried in a submenu, or require opening a preferences window (or whatever they call it) and then going a couple levels deep in that.

Also, wouldn't 4x as many features being accessed mean that the average person is now still only using ~40 functions in MSWord, instead of ~10? Didn't something like 10 commands account for 90+% of use? Or am I misremembering some research?

Finally, i think whether or not menus are more or less helpful is not something inherent to the interface, but dependent on the user. If you're a textual user--like my dad--a series of menus and submenus, provided they are functionally organized, is much better. He'll never figure out what all the little button icons mean, and it has taken him years to even get to the point of automatically recognizing the syntactic meaning of the open/save/print buttons. He still uses the menu commands, or sometimes keyboard commands, for pretty much everything. If you're a visual user, buttons, whether on a toolbar or a ribbon, are generally better. I suspect that the quality of the icons starts to become a big deal, however, and I think that the computer industry as a whole has been really hit-or-miss on that front. In MSWord, frex, I knew what the majority of the buttons on the default toolbars did the first time I saw them. But on the less-common toolbars, I often had to hover over them to figure out what they were the first time. Likewise for the ribbon commands.

That's the primary way that I think menu commands are far more discoverable--yes, you have to open a menu to see what is on it, but then you probably instantly know what those commands do, at least in broad strokes. I've often run into buttons (not just MS products--Adobe's perhaps the worst offender, at least on OS X) that I have no idea what it is by looking at it. Or, IOW, with menus you have to discover where commands/options are. With the ribbon, finding them is comparatively easy, but you have to discover what they are. I wonder how many people bother to figure out what the non-obvious icons mean? Is the increase in diversity of function use just using functions that they now can more easily find--and how many of them are somewhere other than the main ribbon? Or are people actually using features that, while easy to access, are still non-obvious with the new interface?

I just don't see how that would work. Apple and Android have shown clearly that there is an affinity for home screens that are cluttered with lots of icons that don't even communicate information. I fail to see how a less cluttered tile-based interface that actively presents information you care about is somehow more confusing or worse than 4 pages of icons...

EDIT: Note I'm not saying iOS/Android is the right way to do it, just saying there is ample evidence that users cope with clutter quite well right now. Since Metro is arguably less cluttered, I see this as a wash at worst.

I think the problem is that, in stripping out the clutter, they also stripped out some of the information-laden UI elements. Frex, looking at the recent article on the new mail program, my first thought was that it's actually harder to read because it makes no real distinction between UI elements and content. A single flat square of color I find gives me no idea of where to focus my attention--I want visual cues on the important and non-important bits. The fact that they're really garish colors doesn't help--it leads to a very visually aggressive interface. IMHO, it's a bit like writing in all caps--the entire interface is screaming at you, all the time, so picking out the important bits becomes hard.

Personally, I've always thought the ribbon was a bad decision in UI design:

1. The standard drop-down menu system does everything in straight lines. So if you don't know where a menu command is, you can simply scan the bar until you see it. This is impossible on the ribbon, because there are multiple levels to the design... especially the buttons to get to the drop-down menus that are buried in the ribbon. (Yes, some drop-down menus are still there!)

2. The older, customizable combination of menus and toolbars allowed less often used commands to stay hidden away in the menus. This actually reduces screen clutter and keeps as much real estate as possible for the actual document editing area.

I'm with you. I use probably 3 commands on the ribbon in MSWord on a regular basis. That's a lot of screen real estate and visual clutter taken up to make those 3 commands available. If this were an old-style toolbar, or an OS X-style toolbar, I'd customize it to strip out all the extraneous-to-me commands. As is, I just hide it, but that only half-solves the problem. Every time I *do* want to use one of those commands, I have to find it amongst a huge mess of visual clutter.

Also, MS's official page about the [current] MSWord ribbon says that the commands are grouped in "logical categories", but their own research and statements on the ribbon say that they are grouped in part by how people typically use them--which may be a logic, but it's not a discernible one for someone just using the interface. I think that's the biggest problem, for me. If you put the 10 most-used commands on the main ribbon, and then the 10 next-most-frequently-used commands on the next, and so on, there is no structure to the organization. If you match the typical usage patterns, great!--the commands are all right there. But if you don't it's a lousy organization, because there's no discernible logic to it--I can't predict where a command will be. Combine that with a few things being intentionally buried for "security" reasons, and I find the post-ribbon interface much harder to navigate.

Simple rules: if you vote on the poll, leave a comment with what you voted for, so that 1 year from launch, we'll know who was right and who was wrong. Don't be a jerk and just vote without commenting: own your predictions.

Microsoft has re-invented its UI many times, some more extreme than others. As a power user, I have been able to adapt and learn the new hot keys and the majority of the time they are improved and more intuitive. It is not fun for a little while, but just have to stick to it. Now I go back to say office 2003 from 2007 and now 2010, I can't find anything.... the new organization of tasks and features does make sense. I do however fear the new "metro" start screen, but I am trying to keep an open mind. There is probably a method to Microsoft's madness.